There is a discussion in process within the Capable People LinkedIn discussion group at the moment, started by Craig Cartmell. Craig initially asked whether anyone had seen much evidence of any practical application of ISO 9004:2009 by companies. Naturally, I’ve added my ten cents, but the issues, I think, deserve an airing on here too, as I think, at best, ISO 9004:2009 is an enigma

So, two years on, where are we with it?

When ISO 9004:2009 was released, I think it is fair to say it took a lot of us by surprise. I posted a review of it soon after I had first sight of it, but at that time it was a bit early to judge its practical impact. What struck me first was that it was fundamentally a different document to its predecessor both in content and intended use. It no longer gave you clause by clause help on the intent of ISO 9001. In retrospect I now see that as a big retrograde step. Whatever we might feel about the weaknesses of ISO 9001, the old ISO 9004 did at least reduce the chances of inappropriate application. So, that useful “help” document is gone (or at least withdrawn). Whatever the intent of ISO 9004:2009 was or is, I do think that at the very least the old 9004 should have been allowed to retain its position within the series. The baby, in my opinion, went out with the bathwater. At the time I remember thinking, based on the general bemusement of the community with ISO 9004:2009, who asked for this? Time would tell, I concluded – let’s see who is actively using it two years down the line. Now I believe it is fair to conclude that appetite for the document is limited. I get around more than most and do not find people using it at all in a business context, and the only chatter about it is in an academic context such as this

Now I do appreciate that hindsight is 100% accurate, but I also believe that it is not that difficult to vox pop the user group and get a feel for demand beforehand. I simply cannot accept that this could have been done properly in this case. There are people who believe that it was developed with a view to craftily sliding in a “higher than ISO 9001″ level of QMS certification by stealth, but I’ve not seen any evidence for this. Moreover I don’t think the document reads like a certifiable standard, so I don’t buy into that conspiracy theory. In summary I am still left scratching my head after two years, lamenting the loss of the old style ISO 9004 and wondering how much time and money was spent (I won’t say wasted) developing something which, to me, seems like a complete white elephant

Post from: Capable People Blog

ISO 9004:2009 – Is it any practical use?

The performance of a system is affected in no small way by the behaviour of the people in it. They are affected in turn by variousl factors, their health and well-being, their state of mind, their competence and, last but not least, their motivation. This somewhat inconvenient situation is nevertheless recognised in its own somewhat clumsy way within ISO 9000. Involvement of People is listed as one of the 8 underpinning principles of quality management. The only problem is the auditable standard does not devote much effort towards defining any required system attributes that are likely to promote the principle, save perhaps for a bit of training (clause 6.2.2). It stands as a principle more or less absent of requirements

The main reason for the omission, perhaps, is that the subject is DIFFICULT. It’s tough. The concept of motivation is supported only by a lot of theories. Not laws or rules, just theories. None are proven and not all are necessarily consistent with one another. So dare I suggest that ISO 9001 takes the convenient option of side-stepping the issue for the time being? Let’s face it, many of us do the same. How often do we see adverts for “self-motivated individuals”. What should that tell us about the job? Don’t expect excitement? Don’t expect any thanks, recognition or encouragement? Maybe it should set the alarm bells well and truly ringing as we could often read between the lines “Mug required for god-awful job”

Deming, however, believed people do actually carry an inherent motivation. So maybe this concept of a “self-motivated individual” is no fallacy, after all. He believed each of us holds a desire to do a good job and we take pride in doing so. If true, that’s has to be a good thing, hasn’t it? Because, as leaders and managers, it gets us off to a bit of a flying start

But hang on a moment, we need to be careful. “Inherent” does not mean “unconditional” or “indestructible”. Motivation can be destroyed. It is destroyed – all the time. How often have we seen first day enthusiasm systematically crushed and replaced by seasoned cynicism and apathy? And here’s the rub. Who always gets the blame for this loss of motivation? Yes, the poor old worker

Good old blame. The management tool of choice for the terminally inept, as easy as credit and as versatile as a Swiss Army Knife

Anyway, whatever theory of motivation we subscribe to, it is underpinned by a fundamental law
People get pissed off

This links nicely back to an earlier post relating to the role of leaders in amongst all this malarkey. A key role of a leader, according to Deming, is to continually seek ways to make it easier for people to do a good job – remove the barriers. This post on Curious Cat refers to Deming’s views on this matter and calls on managers not to motivate but to “Stop De-Motivating Employees”

In other words, people are already inherently motivated – all we as leaders can do is mess it up … but sadly mess it up we usually do

In a very early post I highlighted the practice in a US Army Garrison of rewarding staff for making improvement suggestions. Deming was not one for that sort of thing at all. He deemed that to be extrinsic motivation, and you only need extrinsic motivation if you have failed to build intrinsic motivation into the job. He saw extrinsic motivators like that as a work-around and an indicator of a deeper, more under-lying, system malaise

Anyway, to summarise, we can perhaps take a useful and practical lesson from this great imponderable. That is, if the subject of motivation is so big and complex so as to freak us out, could we come at it from another, perhaps easier, angle, and focus on the identification and removal of demotivators?

Post from: Capable People Blog

Deming on involvement of people

Any type, any size?

ISO 9001 is a generic standard. Any company, any size, any sector, any country. It is written to be equally applicable to a small service organisation to a large manufacturing organisation. Don’t believe the hype. I’ve helped a company with 2 employees implement the standard and I can tell you it was no fun at all Now don’t get me wrong. It is possible to implement an ISO 9001 conforming system in a very small company, but it needs a bit of skill, nifty interpretation and sprinkling of jiggery pokery. For example, the development, review and communication of the Quality Policy can be a bit of a nonsense in this context; the independence of internal audits is an inherent problem unless they are contracted out; if the company doesn’t sub-contract we might be able justify an exclusion purchasing (yes, really – it is in section 7 after all); value-adding process measures might be difficult to identify and justify (they should be able to tell you things you might not already know), and developing a procedure for control of non conforming product in a very small service provider may be no more than an exercise in box ticking. It should be in section 7, in my opinion. So flexibility and common sense is the order of the day After saying all of this, I’m not saying that ISO 9001 has no place in the land of the small, just that there’s an argument for specific guidance in these situations just to avoid the risk of implementation of crappy systems. Especially as I’m seeing an increasing number of small, agile companies with an eye on quality. We don’t want to cut them off, do we? The standard and assessment schemes should be more ready and able to embrace these start-ups.

Post from: Capable People Blog

ISO 9001 in a small business

It’s here. A year after the publication of ISO 9001:2008, the companion document ISO 9004 has been updated. And whilst the most recent changes to ISO 9001 have been minimal and to all intents and purposes largely cosmetic, the changes to ISO 9004 have not. The changes are big. In fact the revised standard is barely recognisable from its predecessor. It’s different

So what are the changes?

… Where do we start?

OK, gone is the old title “Guidelines for Performance Improvement”. The new title for ISO 9004:2009 is “Managing for the sustained success of an organisation – a quality management approach”. Gone is the old familiar format that mirrored ISO 9001. The ISO 9001 requirements as “boxed text” accompanied by some general hints and tips outside the boxed text, there to help us understand and apply the various requirements of ISO 9001. That is gone

In fact, ISO 9004 no longer follows the structure and requirements of ISO 9001 in any real way. It no longer goes through the ISO 9001 requirements and offers specific clause by clause advice. It actually does more or less what the title implies, it offers guidance on a more general “quality management approach”

This calls into question what the intended application of ISO 9004 actually is. It can no longer really function as an implementation guide to ISO 9001, firstly because it no longer tries to, but secondly because the scope of its content is now fundamentally different. It contains, for example, guidance on such matters as:

• Strategy and policy formulation
• Strategy and policy deployment
• Financial resources
• Knowledge, information and technology
• Natural resources
• Innovation & learning

Wow. That’s different. Good topics though these might be for any management system, they are, arguably, out-with the current scope of ISO 9001:2008. What is more, it appears that ISO 9004 is starting to use some established terms in a different way to ISO 9001. “Policy” for instance. If we look at the way ISO 9001 uses the term “Policy” (with reference to clause 5.3) it deals very much with the one page “statement of intent” that we all know and (maybe) love. ISO 9004 appears to be using the term “Policy” in a broader sense, something more detailed, meaningful and less neutral. And strategy? Well, ISO 9001 currently does not even go there

The most obvious “hit you in the face” feature of ISO 9004:2009, however, is that it borrows very heavily from the EFQM Excellence Model

All of those new topics I listed above feature heavily in the excellence model, and have done for a couple of decades. We saw a small movement to an “excellence model approach” in 2000 when the “8 Principles” were introduced. These principles were lifted, more or less, from the principles that underpinned the EFQM excellence model at the time. Some of them (Continual Improvement, Customer Focus) even generated some significant new requirements within ISO 9001:2000. Many people expected ISO 9001:2008 to move a little further in that general “excellence” direction. It did not, of course. Some of us were pleased, some of us were disappointed. Maybe ISO 9004:2009 is a kind of half-way house? Maybe it has been developed this way as a means of placating those of us that maintain ISO 9001 standards are old fashioned or not challenging enough? Maybe ISO is saying, “OK you want something more challenging? There you are. Next time be careful what you wish for!”

Either way, as a general observation, I have to say that I am detecting some initial confusion. Not that the contents are in any way badly written or irrelevant, just that practitioners are simply confused as to what the intent of ISO 9004:2009 actually is. How are we to use it? Will certification bodies develop a certification scheme for it? (there’s a thought), how are ISO 9001 auditors meant to use it? All these questions remain for the moment, so far as I can see, unanswered

So, yes, it appears to be a “quality” document, but will it be used in a “quality” way? Only time will tell

KWVBPN9H9MGS

Post from: Capable People Blog

ISO 9004:2009 – A review

I’m re-working and re-publishing this article as it has once more become topical. Right now on the CapablePeople QHSE Community Forum on LinkedIn*, we’re having a discussion about the ills of third party management system certification. We quickly appear to be reaching consensus that there are problems, and Certification Bodies are attracting a degree of criticism. In my opinion they deserve it and have brought it all on themselves

I have long been of the opinion that Certification Bodies should not be allowed to have a high influence on the review process where management system standards are concerned. Personally I don’t think they should be allowed a voice at all. It is literally none of their business. The simple fact is that Certification Bodies have a clear commercial conflict of interest which, I would strongly suggest, will heavily influence their views on the standard, what it should contain and, more to the point, how difficult it should be to achieve. The simple truth is that it is in the CBs commercial interest to achieve as many registrations as possible. That is not opinion, that is plain fact, and the easier a standard is to achieve, the more registrations are achievable. In the past I have likened this to allowing a traffic warden to paint his own yellow lines. This, I would argue, is a very large problem, and until CBs are put in their place, then a steady degradation in the credibility of standards will be the result, as they gradually become easier and easier

However, there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with certification schemes as such. After all they seem to work quite well in, say, the restaurant and hospitality sector. But schemes for rating restaurants and hotels are administered differently. There are fewer commercial conflicts of interest and they are more clearly run for the primary benefit of the consumer, not to suit the interests of the establishments. Notably, hotel and restaurant “star rated” schemes tend to incorporate an element of “mystery shopper”. These things are not so true of management system certification schemes, and in this post I suggest that this might be the real underlying reason for the credibility crisis, and not the ISO standard itself

To illustrate the point, and for a bit of fun, let’s just consider what would happen if the Michelin Star Restaurant award were run along the same lines as third party QMS certification

We’ll start by eaves-dropping on the strategic management team meeting at Michelin Star HQ …

Michelin Star Award Scheme – Annual General Meeting

“Thank you all for coming to this special meeting today, gentlemen. To start, I think it would be appropriate if I summarise things so we can all agree on where we stand. (Ahem) Since the inception of the Michelin Star restaurant recognition scheme in the early nineties, the scheme has grown to the point that it now recognises over 170,000 establishments in the UK alone, reaching a peak of 195,000 in 2001.  Over the past 7 or 8 years we have seen a slight year on year decline in the number of recognitions, and the time has come to act on the causes of that decline, to protect the future of the scheme. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that suggests that the scheme may be suffering a credibility crisis as a result of some negative press. Negative press not from our customers, you understand (the recognised establishments), but from the food consuming public”

“The peasants are revolting!”

“Ha ha, very good Reg. But seriously we must find a way to shut them up because they are starting to become bad for business”

“What do they know anyway? They need to respect our assessment expertise. We’ve assessed more hot dinners than they’ve … had … hot … dinners … oh, that metaphor doesn’t really …”

“A valid point nonetheless Reg. But the fact remains that they are noisy and irritating and we need to do something to put a stop to their continual moaning”

“What sort of things are they saying anyway?”

“Oh, I’m surprised you have to ask. The usual rubbish about it being too easy to achieve a Michelin Star, the old accusations that we want to issue as many stars as possible, stars are meaningless, that sort of thing. As an example, the other day I got a complaint asking me how we could award a star to Café Joe on Dewsbury High Street, as it was, in their words, ‘a shit-hole’ – pardon my French”

“How did you respond to that?”

“I simply explained the facts. That the Michelin Star is awarded based on a sample generated at the time of the assessment and that we can only make our recommendation based on what we witness at the time of the assessment”

“Did you also explain that we give them two months notice, turn up only by appointment and only speak to members of staff that we have agreed well in advance?”

“Er, no – I thought it would only confuse matters. Oh, by the way Reg, how did your assessment of Il Polio go yesterday?”

“Oh very well, very well. Infrastructure was sound, doors, tables, floor, that type of thing. Work equipment was in order, plates, forks etc. Food tasted like a tramp’s underpants, but the process for putting it on the table was sound, so the system met our criteria”

“So you’ll be recommending recognition?”

“Absolutely. After all, it’s about system and process - that’s what is important. When are the great unwashed going to wake up to that fact?”

“Probably never, but back to the job at hand. What we need to do is to inject some sort of credibility into the scheme”

“You’re a mad man – it cannot be done!”

“Quiet Ron! – I believe it can. What we need to do is to conduct a high profile review of standards, to prove we’ve got them right. We do need to demonstrate that the stars actually mean something”

“Agreed”

“So as a starter, what I’d like you to do, Reg, is a customer survey – find out what the customer thinks – we are, after all, a customer focused organisation”

“Ask the general public?”

“Oh Christ no – we already know what that rabble thinks, thank you very much. No, our customers – those great establishments who pay their fees and dues to the scheme. We need to find out what they think”

“What sort of things do you want me to ask them?”

“Well Reg, basically just ask them if they think the scheme is fair, or whether they would like us to make it more difficult for them”

“Oh … right. How many do you want me to ask? All of them?”

“What??? Have you been drinking? No! You’re an auditor for god’s sake … a random sample of, say, two hundred will be just fine”

“When you say random sample, do you mean random sample or ‘random sample’ …?”

“Well ‘random sample’ of course. We certainly don’t need to go looking for trouble. Especially from the up-market west end brigade”

“You’re right there. I did an assessment in the west end last week, you know, one of these posh places. Assessment went well enough, a few observations …”

“Like what?”

“Just the usual. Portion sizes too small, prices too high, no childrens’ menu, ambience could be improved by the addition of generic piped muzak, not everyone likes rabbit – consider the addition of some family favourites such as lasagne or gammon & pineapple … – just the type of findings you’d expect from one of these places. Anyway, I’m sitting in the closing meeting with the owner of the place, going through these observations and he starts changing colour, then steam starts coming out of his ears – literally”

“Medical condition?”

“That’s what I thought at first, then he starts turning the air blue with all manner of abuse. You know the type of stuff, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’ve never ran a restaurant …”

“Ah yes … if I had a pound for every time I’ve heard those old chestnuts …”

“Exactly. So I say to him that actually I do know what I’m talking about because I’ve personally issued over 500 Michelin Stars – 180 in Rotherham alone – and I gave him a few practical suggestions”

“Quite right, after all, the assessor should try to add value …”

“Exactly. I gave him some examples of good practice that I’d seen at Il Polio. The massive portions at low low prices … the pet’s menu … the karaoke corner … cheesey chips …”

“I bet that shut him up”

“Huh, you’d think, but no. Made him worse if anything. Told me what I could do with my star. Have you ever had Jamie Oliver telling you to ‘thtick your thtar up your arthe?’ Good job I was wearing my anorak”

“Hah! He’ll be back”

“Yeah, no doubt, but I had the last laugh on him. Because of his attitude towards my best practice suggestions I gave him a non-conformance –‘ failure to consider benchmark data for continual improvement’ …”

“Ha ha you got him there Reg!”

“Bang to rights!”

“People like him just haven’t embraced the continual improvement philosophy. In fact he probably can’t even spell it”

“That’s right. He’s dyslexic”

“Er, yeah right, so back to the job at hand. Don’t waste your time with that load of pretentious so and so’s. They’re in the minority thankfully, and we need to focus on where our bread’s buttered. So can you conduct this vox pop and get back to me with the results in, say … a year?”

“Or thereabouts?”

“Yeah, yeah, a year or thereabouts”

Two years later …

“I’ve got the results of that customer survey you asked for, sir”

“Oh, that’s great Reg. What are your findings?”

“Do you want me to read out all 200 responses or just the summary?”

“Erm, just the summary if you don’t mind Reg …”

“Right you are. Well, the vast majority of the respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they didn’t want the standard to be raised at all”

“That’s fine, anything else?”

“Yes, a little. Some establishments, mostly the Michelin Star takeaways and burger vans, commented that if the standard was raised, they would be worried whether they would be able to meet the higher criteria and that they might have to drop out of the scheme”

“Oh no no, that would never do. There are bloody loads of them – we’d be ruined”

“Exactly. So do you want to hear my recommendation?”

“Yes, go on”

“We leave it alone”

“But what about all this noise from the great unwashed? How are we going to address that little problem of perception?”

“Well, we could publicise the fact we’ve conducted a review …”

“ That won’t be enough – they really want us to do something about our standards, but go on …”

“We could change a few words and re-date the scheme criteria? Recommend a more regular review at unspecified intervals – that might kick it into the long grass for a few years …”

“Brilliant!”

“I’ve also got an idea for extending the scope of the Michelin Star scheme to embrace the not-for-profit sector”

“Not for profit? What does that mean?”

“Well, works canteens, army messes, prison kitchens, homeless shelters … there are LOADS of them!”

“Brilliant – great job! Let’s do it! What are you up to tomorrow?”

“Just a routine surveillance on Il Polio – but don’t worry – I’m taking a packed lunch”

——————————————————-

What if all schemes were run like this ….?

*if you want to join the CapablePeople Community Forum on LinkedIn, simply send a request to join and, provided I like the cut of your jib, I’ll be happy to welcome you in so you can join the debate and get all the links and things that get posted. Shaun

Post from: Capable People Blog

What a way to run a certification scheme

In the 1990s, Deming distilled the essence of his approach into 4 inter-dependent components that he called “a system of profound knowledge”. Together these represent the key disciplines that describe how organisations work and how to manage them more successfully. The components are:

1. Systems thinking – optimising how businesses processes operate from end-to-end working together and with suppliers and for the benefit of customers, and ultimately for the benefit of their customers (in the context of a business to business transactional relationship)

2. Understanding variation – using statistics to gain new insights into business performance and to drive improvements in a sustainable way

3. Psychology – understanding what makes people tick, how to empower them and how to remove the constraints of their ideas and enthusiasms

4. Knowledge – the importance of learning, operational definitions and how rational predictions can be made by managers about future performance

source www.deming.org

In this exert we can see how powerfully and succinctly Deming captures the essence of a system and summarises its set of critical inter-dependent attributes. The inference is clear that in order for a system to function anywhere near to its fullest potential, it needs to develop capabilities across all four components

Now if we try to map some of his views onto ISO 9001 requirements (or vice versa) we can soon see that our attempt are going to be met with limited success. Whereas there has been a fairly visible and half-decent attempt to integrate the first two components into the standard, we will struggle to defend an argument that numbers 3 and 4 are embedded in any useful way (or in the case of number 3, at all). Let’s go through them in turn

Systems thinking – optimising how businesses processes operate from end-to-end working together and with suppliers and for the benefit of customers, and ultimately for the benefit of their customers (in the context of a business to business transactional relationship)

The Systems Approach to Management is indeed one of the 8 principles of quality management. These 8 great truths are meant to provide a back-drop of intent to underpin the use of the technical standard. Within the clauses of ISO 9001 there is heavy use of the word “system”, particularly among the general requirements of section 4. However the principle of “systems thinking” weakens as we progress through the standard. Clauses sit in relative isolation from one another, and the implementation of the system is left at the school gates, so to speak. That is, we get a bit of the theory in section 4, but as soon as we proceed into practicalities of the operational real world (section 7), it may as well have been in “Section Pluto”. The threads are not cohesive, allowing for significant failings in both understanding and implementation at operational level. The structure of ISO 9001 does not help, and it is a real shame that ISO 9001:2008 does not appear ready to follow the successful lead of ISO 14001 and structure its requirements in a  PDCA sequence. The reason why?

Understanding variation – using statistics to gain new insights into business performance and to drive improvements in a sustainable way

Hmmm, some good here, and some bad. There can be little argument that ISO 9001 makes an attempt to emphasise the discipline of management by facts and analysis in a number of key areas. We have mandatory requirements for product measurement (8.2.4), process measurement (8.2.3), internal audit (8.2.2) measurement of customer satisfaction (8.2.1) analysis of data (8.4) and management review (5.6). This is good, both in terms of discipline and in terms of the potential value to the organisation if they happen to develop an effective information management system around those data collection and decision making processes. The primary weakness is how well ISO 9001 (and indeed ISO 9004) deals with the second part of the component (i.e. understanding). Turning all this effort in counting and measuring things into meaningful management information and positive, proactive decisions is the key, and it is still far too easy to miss the whole point and get wrapped up in a very literal, cosmetic and low value approach of management by numbers

Psychology – understanding what makes people tick, how to empower them and how to remove the constraints of their ideas and enthusiasms

Now we’re skating on far, far thinner ice. Whilst there has almost been a tentative acceptance offered that this component is important (involvement of people is another of our 8 quality management principles), frankly ZERO attempt has been made to tackle this knotty topic within the published standard. You can search for this as long as you like, it isn’t there. What does this tell us? Was Deming wrong? Is it an oversight? Or is it like asking the review panel to write and perform a full length ballet? People are important system components. Ignoring them won’t make them go away. This, we argue, is a MAJOR weakness and, again, a weakness that is nowhere near as weak in ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001. People are our greatest asset? Again, more questions of the review panel. Lessons have been learned and incorporated into other management standards, why not ISO 9001?

Knowledge – the importance
of learning, operational definitions and how rational predictions can be made by managers about future performance

OK, again we can make a case that clauses 8.4 and 5.6 (analysis of data and management review) tip toe in the right direction, but Deming’s component was looking for a bit more. Nah, a lot more. What we REALLY REALLY want to see is the management of information in context of organisational learning. For an idea of where that might lead, check out our earlier post. This too, like component 3, is poorly applied within the standard, if it is at all. At the time of writing we could argue this is light years off the ISO 9001 radar

So where does that leave us? Well, right back where we started. We can say that ISO 9001 isn’t all bad. It can encourage a number of approaches that gets us off the blocks, so to speak, but we would be quite wrong if we were to think that it takes us too far on our ultimate quest for excellence. It has strengths, but it also has weaknesses and omissions, so in order for us to use it to best effect, we need to know how far it takes us, where it leaves us, and what we need to do to get to that next stop. In this post we’ve identified that parallel strategies that deal effectively with the psychological complexities of human motivation need to be considered, as well as the principles of wider “knowledge management”

One final, and important, point I will introduce into this particular equation, is that deming went to great pains to point out that not all aspects of a system can be known or predicted. The system will always be impacted by unknown or unknowable factors. This actually is quite an uncomfortable reality for many “quality types” who may want to believe that EVERYTHING can be known, predicted and controlled. the problem is that this is a fantasy. The most effective managers will understand the realities of life and of management and realise that effective application of good quality management practices do little more than up the odds of success. The more complex a system gets, the harder it will be to build a full and detailed picture of each “butterfly effect”

Post from: Capable People Blog

Deming on systems thinking

I was a Quality Manager in a large Government department for a while over a decade ago, so I have an interest whenever Governments start making noises about renewed efforts to drive out public sector inefficiency. I’ve heard it all before, of course, but this time it’s seems to be different. This time failure seems like its not an option

The old obstacles are still there, though. The main one being that the systems are not actually designed to be efficient. That is no comment on the will, commitment or talent of the people who work there, you understand, but just on the way the system is set up. It is unintentionally designed to resist efficiency. I will elaborate

There are significant features of public sector systems that make them resist efficiency

• The way budgets are set up and managed
• The system is designed to try and protect its own equilibrium

Budget underspend is a problem not an achievement

As a manager I had a budget. I was given that budget at the start of the year and told to make it last. So I did. I knew that I’d be in trouble if I overspent. I also knew I’d cause myself a headache if I underspent. So I did neither. I, like all of my peers, made it last. This was generally achieved by a combination of two quarters of cautionary spending, followed by two quarters of progressively care-free spending (depending on how much I had left and how quickly I had to get rid of it). If I didn’t spend my budget I knew I’d get less next year, and I didn’t want that if I could avoid it, especially as there was no reward in it for me for giving anything back, and it would only give my staff a harder time next year. So why would I try and save? Who would?

The status quo is the safest option

Every two or three months I would be asked by the Chief Executive (via his secretary of course) for some “words on quality” for his ministerial briefing. It was my job to make sure he had plenty to talk about, so we did a lot of things on Investors in People, EFQM, Chartermark etc. I don’t want to sound big-headed, but I have a way with words and I could make these activities sound pretty impressive – I knew what they wanted to hear. No-one ever asked me to justify anything or put numbers on anything (god forbid), so the “quality improvements” it could have been argued, were almost entirely cosmetic – smoke and mirrors. And that, at the time, was good enough. No-one really wanted any of these improvement projects to put anyone’s nose out of joint, so we were channeled towards safe territory. We redesigned forms, we moved photocopiers to reduce travel time, that type of thing. We never did anything like ask “You see that fellow over there? What does he get paid? More to the point, what does he actually do?”  I’ve since heard it called “the elephant in the room” syndrome. Things like identifying underloaded jobs, or over-staffed departments would cause managerial problems and we didn’t need go round creating any of those. Provided we showed a bit of willing, we’d be left alone. That meant the equilibrium of the system was not upset. No-one lost their jobs, had their budgets cut or anything like that. So no-one complained. Then after a while the Government as usual got distracted by something else and we were completely off the hook for a while. You could buy a lot of time with great anecdotes …

Things might be different this time round. I get the impression that this time words will be no good. They’ll need deeds, and deeds with numbers attached. Governments are spent up and need to make some savings to off-set all of those so-called “financial stimuli”. Consequently the option of cosmetic improvement may well be removed this time round, and kicking things into the long grass may prove more difficult

That made me think. If I was a manager in the public sector right now, what would I do? It’s a fair bet that “quality improvement” and “efficiencies” may well become the buzz-words once again, but would I try to steal a march right now and put myself ahead of the game? Score some early points maybe? I’m not sure I would

It could actually work against me. I could end up with the worst of both worlds if I made my savings before I was asked. The big risk would be that I’d make my command a lot leaner, but then this new “lean” position would be used as my starting baseline and I could be asked to deliver yet more on top of that, with no credit being given for my earlier voluntary endeavors. Better I sat and waited till I was ordered to do it, I might decide. That way I’d have more scope to find improvements with it being in its current inefficient state

Now all of those features and quirks I’ve described might sound just plain wrong, immoral even, considering its public money we’re dealing with. But that is the way the system is set up. Don’t blame the people. You would do exactly as they do in the same position – I guarantee that. It will be interesting to see if the new reality acknowledges that the way systems behave are generally down to the way they are designed

——————————————–

Post from: Capable People Blog

Public Sector Quality Improvement

Today I have had a eureka moment. Something has become clear to me, and I feel compelled to let you all in on it

About a month ago I published an article on this blog entitled “Why doesn’t the quality community get it?”. The article was subsequently re-published by the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI) on their site, to a mixed reception it has to be said. The article was provocative to say the least. In it I suggested that the reason so many “quality professionals” struggle to obtain the elusive “top management commitment” was because they make little attempt to meet management half-way and understand basic business dynamics and realities. I suggested that many within the “quality community” could do worse than to take a look at themselves as a starting point if they wanted to change the situation

You only have to take a look at some of the comments on the CQI site to note how quickly denial kicked in. I was running a serious risk of rubbing the old guard up the wrong way, but those of you know know me well will understand that the possibility of that was never going to bother me

Anyway, time has moved on, and today I have been involved in an on-line discussion that was originally centred on comparing ISO 9001 with TQM. The discussion somehow evolved into one about efficiency and effectiveness, and this was where I had my epiphany. During the course of the discussion two things became apparent

1. Many practitioners considered that efficiency had little, if anything, to do with ISO 9001, and consequently was outside of the remit of the quality department

2. A lot of quality people did not even understand what the term “efficiency” actually means

To illustrate my second point I’ll use the example that one contributor stated that efficiency was about “doings things right”. Well it isn’t. That is closer to the definition of effectiveness. Efficiency and effectiveness are not the same thing

What is efficiency?

The term efficiency has meaning in a range of contexts, not just quality. Here are a couple of definitions from the worlds of physics, economics and lastly from quality

Efficiency in physics

“The ratio of the effective output compared to the total input within a system”

Efficiency in economics

“Situation in which it is impossible to generate a larger total from the available resources”

Efficiency in ISO 9000

“Relationship between the result achieved and the resources used”

All of these definitions say more or less the same thing, that a state of efficiency compares what you get out to what you put in. A highly efficient system, therefore, is one that produces the most conforming output items for a given input

Efficiency is NOT about “doing it right”

When politicians claim that a public sector department is inefficient, they are not claiming that they can’t do their job. They are suggesting that the department costs more to run than it should. They are claiming that there is too much waste in the system. That if the department was more efficient, then we’d be getting a similar output, but we’d not need to spend so much to get it

Now, there are two things that amaze me when it comes to some “quality” people

1. Just how few appear to have grasped this fairly simple and fundamental concept

2. Many quality professionals do not see “efficiency” as part of their brief in any way

Understanding this has been my eureka, my blinding flash. Now everything is clear to me. Now I understand why many quality professionals fail to engage senior management and turn them on to quality. The fact is that if senior management were to try and run a business using the narrow view of quality adopted by many quality types, we’d be closing the doors in no time

Businesses have to be efficient. If they are inefficient, they become uncompetitive. They may be able to produce conforming and functioning goods, but they can’t make any money in the process. Call me obtuse, but if I was a senior manager and I had a quality manager that had not grasped that basic concept, and had not looked at how his “quality strategy” could help me make a decent margin, I’d not have much time for the guy either

When Philip Crosby suggested that quality people needed to speak the language of the boardroom in order to be effective, he wasn’t throwing in a disposable sound bite, he was succinctly making an incredibly important point. In fact if I was a CEO who had a quality manager who did not think that efficiency was part of his job, I’d be looking for a new quality manager within five minutes

Post from: Capable People Blog

Quality and efficiency

Last week I published a review of ISO 9004:2009. In it I noted just how “EFQM” it was. That sparked a short exchange between Mark Harbor and I on Twitter about the merits of the EFQM self-assessment approach and the limitations of the typical ISO 9001 audit-driven approach. Something from that debate concerned me and it was a while before I could put my finger on what it was. Now I think I have

It is my firm belief that when we compare EFQM and ISO 9001 the strength of one framework is the weakness of the other and vice versa. In other words, what one framework does well, the other does badly, and the match is almost a perfect negative

In this post I’m going to try to explain exactly what I mean by that

My history with EFQM and ISO

My involvement with each model goes well beyond academia. Those of you who know me from Capable People will be aware that I’ve been training ISO 9001 lead auditors for about ten years, however prior to that, in a past life (in the 1990s) I worked extensively with the EFQM Model. I assessed on numerous occasions for the UK Excellence Award and the North East Excellence Award, trained assessors for the North East Excellence Award on a couple of occasions, and also got involved in upwards of 50 internal EFQM self-assessments for various organisations. It is from these direct experiences that I draw my conclusions

The reason I found it necessary to describe my battle scars, particularly with regard to the EFQM Model, is simply because it works so well on paper. If you’d never been through the pain of self-assessment, and suffered the frustration of post-assessment inertia, you’d never guess it had a single fault … but it does

The strengths of the EFQM approach

Frankly the EFQM approach has a few faults, but let’s start with the strengths, because the glass might just be half-full. I’ll try and list them;

• Its criteria covers strategic processes in far more detail than ISO 9001
• It does the “systems approach” better too
• Its criteria are “weighted” and identify that some processes are more critical than others (which they are)
• It does “leadership” in a more detailed and academically sound way
• It makes a more concerted effort to direct assessors to identify cause and effect relationships (sometimes in vain of course, but it tries, nonetheless)
• It includes financial/business results and some financial processes within its criteria (not simply “quality”)
• It directs assessors to examine the integrity and breadth of “results” in a better way, including an appreciation of direct and indirect measures, and the benefit of a balanced range of metrics
• It actually has criteria that support the “Involvement of People” quality principle
• EFQM self assessment is surprisingly good fun, if you like that sort of thing

The weaknesses of the EFQM approach

Although it has strengths it does have its significant weaknesses or, in EFQM language, Areas For Improvements (AFIs). These are what I consider have always been the most significant ones;

• The use of documented evidence or the requirement to provide “proof” (as opposed to testimony) within the self-assessment process is usually limited
• Although the criteria, in theory, covers strategic issues, financial measures and results, the output from assessment will only ever be as good as the inputs allow. In my experience of going through numerous assessments, there is an almost universal reluctance from the senior team to allow unfettered access to this sensitive information “warts and all”. Therefore the principle of “Garbage In – Garbage Out” (GIGO) usually applies
• Although the criteria includes financial performance, it does not do it in sufficient enough detail to allow a realistic assessment of the sustainability of the business. Assessors may well look at how budgets are allocated and managed, which is a good thing in itself, but sustainability is the $10,000 question. Consequently there have been numerous examples of award winners getting into commercial difficulties a very short time after receiving an EFQM based award. It could therefore be argued that the model awards a deceptively high score for companies that are going out of business albeit in an “excellent” way. This feature may well partially explain why it seems to have retained its popularity a little longer within the public sector in the UK. In this sector financial management more or less is management of budgets, and the issue of commercial sustainability is not really a factor in the mix
• The assessment does not identify any clear “rights” and “wrongs” – just a set of “coulds” and “could do betters”. Fair enough, you might think, but in my experience that almost always leads to strangulation of the process by inertia once the assessment is complete. Typically the assessment will yield upwards of 150 strengths and 150 AFIs, with no direction on priorities (that is for the company to decide). The problem is that this wealth of data  usually completely overwhelms the organisation and brings the process of improvement via self assessment to a sudden stop. You can have too much information
• The process, done properly, is incredibly hungry on resources and often struggles to satisfy even the briefest of cost versus benefit analysis

I must confess that between the years 1994-1999 there was no bigger disciple of EFQM than I. However, after a few years, Groundhog Day well and truly kicked in. I looked back over the fifty or so assessments that I’d been involved in and struggled to identify even a small hand full that had delivered real improvements. That is, improvements that I felt the organisation could not have identified anyway, simply by intuition. The fact was that most companies already knew fine well what their biggest problems were before the process began, and I could see in the faces of many a senior manager during the assessor feedback an expression that suggested “this is an expensive way of telling us what we already knew”. I’ve heard senior teams criticised on numerous occasions for a lack of “buy-in” or “commitment”, but sometimes you need to see things from their perspective. After a while I found myself asking, hand on heart, “is this an effective use of so much resource?”

My biggest criticism, however, is that these weaknesses have existed within the EFQM framework for almost 20 years. They are actionable, but the guardians of the model have done little to resolve them. Is that continuous improvement?

EFQM and ISO 9001

Each framework having more or less the exact opposite strengths and weaknesses actually carries a thick irony – the solutions are staring us in the face. To be fair, there has been some movement on the ISO 9001 side to incorporate some of the EFQM strengths. This was seen most obviously when ISO 9000:2000 was published. The under-pinning “8 principles of quality management” were introduced, as were some new EFQM-influenced criteria, most notably Customer Satisfaction and Continual Improvement. However, to my eyes, this was done in a very superficial and even a clumsy way. The clauses were brief and ill defined, leading to a large degree of elasticity in the way the are applied. Now we also have ISO 9004:2009, which moves even further in the EFQM direction. However, in Mark’s words, “does it ever deliver truly strategic information?” Probably not

And ISO 9001 does have its strengths

There is clear potential for a meeting of minds between the frameworks. For all its weaknesses, ISO 9001 has the inarguable strength that it requires auditability and proof. An ISO 9001 audit may not be strategic but, done properly, it should at least be factual, reliable and performed in a reasonably cost-effective way. ISO 9001 systems also usually benefit from two levels of independent scrutiny and regulation (again maybe not perfect but its there). Plus ISO 9001 certification is worldwide and widespread and it has found a way (by fair means or foul) to role out a commercially viable model and system of assessment

The conclusion? Put both frameworks in a blender and turn it on. We might just end up with a half-decent smoothie

3rd December 2009: Update to this article

Matt Fisher posted a very useful comment to this post yesterday and told us that the most recent EFQM revision has taken some of these issues on board

Here’s a link to a press release on the subject, from EFQM

The criteria has in fact been expanded with regard to sustainability. On a first review it does appear to relate to environmental as opposed to economic sustainability (profitability in other words), which was the weakness to which I was referring in my post

Post from: Capable People Blog

EFQM and ISO 9001 – A comparison of approaches

What’s eating Shaun?

Unlike most of my “quality” peers I do not come from an engineering background. I am aware of spanners, yes, but I am unsure under what circumstances one would use such an implement safely. I actually come from an HR and management background, and spent a not inconsiderable time collecting a range of qualifications in that field. That means I like to think I can express a relatively informed opinion on the “people” type things in management standards. Like section 5 of ISO 9001 for instance

Before I start dissecting section 5 clause by clause I’ll start with the big stuff, because I not only think that that the clauses are badly written, pointless, unenforceable or whatever, I actually think to a large extent it has missed the point completely. I have written on the subject of top management/quality department dislocation in the past and I could suggest that if the quality department were to use section 5 as its primary tool for engaging top management, that could well be one of the major problems. In my experience there are few idiots occupying top positions. There are also few “uncommitted” individuals at that level as their livelihoods depend on being successful, so to suggest top management are fools for not understanding “quality” or accusing them of not being “committed” is not only usually a bad career move, it is usually just plain wrong

Shaddap! Leave me alone! Give me some peace!

One of the problems is that top managers usually have a flock of department heads underneath them and they all have one thing in common. They each believe the planet (not just the company) revolves around their department. The HR manager thinks the world revolves around HR and that every problem has an HR solution, the sales manager likewise, same with purchasing, same with IT, same (if we see it from their perspective) with quality. The functions that get the ear and the support of top management are the one’s who make the most persuasive case, and in boardroom language that usually means that the case usually needs to be expressed clearly in cost versus benefit terms. Section 5 completely by-passes the importance of this critical dynamic. It does not so much as acknowledge that it exists

When higher quality is a bad thing?

Understanding the financial side of “quality” is a critical principle that has to be understood within the organisation. There is a point in the life-cycle of every product and service when “higher quality” is a bad thing. I often find senior execs understand this better than their quality people, and it certainly does not feature in ISO 9001, which is a major, major omission

What is “top management”?

Fundamentally, in management system terms, top management has three critical responsibilities

1. Define and communicate direction
2. Provide the resources people might need to make it happen
3. Personal intervention, when required, to make it happen

Let’s go through those three items one by one

Define and communicate direction

People need to know what they are supposed to do. They need to know in which direction the company is headed. One of the weaknesses of ISO 9001 is that it more or less assumes that this will always be predominantly quality driven, which often it is not. Management of an organisation (boiled down to its bare essentials) is little more than making the best use of what resources you have to try to make the best of a set of circumstances, and managing risk. That can often mean trying to make insufficient resources go as far as they possibly can, and make a bad situation less bad than it could have been

Personally I find the mandatory inputs of clause 5.6.2 less than appropriate in many situations. I see no reason why things like results of audits and product/process issues etc can’t be analysed and managed away from the boardroom. Many senior managers like to keep strategic review strategic and the MR requirement restricts that approach. Additionally, to have the primary output of this review to be determined as “quality objectives” doesn’t help anyone. In reality (in large and successful corporations that don’t go near ISO 9001) the company may express strategies at the top level and then translate those into what we could describe as “quality objectives” at the operational planning stage. In this case I like the way ISO 14001 clause 4.3.3 handles objectives as it does not allow for the documentation of woolly aspirational objectives supported by ill-defined “plans”. It requires something far more substantial and, if we are to assume that these so-called “quality objectives” are the most important quality issue a company faces, they should be expressed clearly, properly project managed and appropriately disaggregated into personal goals and targets, with a system of review that operates at each level, not just “MR”

The Quality Policy requirement is a complete nonsense. That is not to say that I don’t believe that policies in general are nonsense, just that the thing that clause 5.3 requires is not substantial enough to be called a “policy” by any right thinking person. It is, at best, a statement of intent, and if we are grown up about it, it never impacts anybody’s work. Ever. So it either needs to be changed into something that COULD be described as a policy or ditched. I get embarrassed every time that the policy gets audited during a third party audit because everybody (apart from the auditor usually) knows that it simply does not matter. That does not mean the company may not be serious about quality, you understand, just that it is a pointless document that for some reason this chap obsesses over

Provision of resources

Clause 5.1 and 5.2 of ISO 9001 as they are written are extremely difficult to audit objectively, maybe impossible even. In fact 5.1 is expressed in a way that can best be described as “potentially inflammatory” to say the least. Management support (commitment if you want to call it that) is important, but let’s be more practical about what that means. Forget about the quality policy. It does not matter. So far as support and commitment is concerned it is time and money. The most practical way to test support is to follow the money. If resources are not provided to make things happen it is both a top management issue and a serious problem. That’s the money side.

Personal intervention

The “time” side relates to whether or not they are prepared to intervene personally to make things happen. That could mean banging the heads of two department managers together to make them play nicely or, to take Deming’s view, to try to make it easy for people to do the right thing. To actively try to seek out the barriers to quality and take them away. Active rather than passive involvement, real stuff with a point to it

Involvement of People … where are you?

Involvement of people is a stated quality principle of ISO 9001. I do not have a problem with that and the concept is supported by Deming among others. I am heartened that the ISO 9000 series has acknowledged the importance of it, but I struggle to find a smoking gun in amongst the clauses of ISO 9001. Quite simply “where is it?” This just looks to me like a half-finished job, and when it came to defining requirements, the matter was simply ducked

So what could have happened? Well, back to Deming again, what we are trying to achieve is the most efficient application of the potential and expertise of our workers. That relies on one thing above all else. A good upward communication process or problem reporting process. In the last section I mentioned that top managers should, among other things, act as a remover of barriers. For this to happen they really need to know what the barriers are. If the upward communication doesn’t work, it won’t happen

The solution?

So what would I do? I could make the solution complex, but I won’t. If the solution is too complex it won’t get done. The ISO review of standards process is change averse, so baby steps is the order of the day. What I would do is to structure ISO 9001 in a PDCA way and bring it more into line with OHSAS 18001 and ISO 14001. Not only would it improve the application of top management stuff considerably, but it would also make a heck of a lot of sense to people

My view as always. It may change tomorrow, that’s the trouble

Post from: Capable People Blog

Top management and the management system